Talk:U-47700

Requested move 2014

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

U-47700 → U-4700 – I have tried & failed to move it mytself. I did spent 4 hours before asking for help Reaxys doesn&#39;t understand circle-in-polygon format of SMILES! (talk) 09:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment why? You need to provide reasoning for why we should rename the article. (DistilBio: U-47700 page exists) (BistilBio: U-4700 -- 404 not found) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Synthesis
Whether standard or not, I thought the inclusion of the synthesis route went well in this article. Testem (talk) 10:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I understand your keen to help by providing synthesis drawing, but I think we might be in danger of making the site a cookbook for drugs. Just my opinion. I would value other peoples input. I just studied it because it was the conclusion of the class spread over more than a dozen patents. It IS useful for researchers to perform overlays. I mean, it contains ring-halogens which is pretty non-standard and not covered in any books I could find on the subject.


 * This is the first page I have built so someone with more knowledge than me and someone who understands the process better than me... I'm a bit lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvwynn (talk • contribs) 18:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am of the opinion that wikipedia should not censor information, be it about racism, drugs, violence etc. We are just here to provide information, it's not our responsibility to withold facts.Testem (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

largely WP:OR
This article is largely WP:OR. what is sourced, is sourced almost entirely to WP:PRIMARY (which itself demonstrates the WP:OR problems, but also makes determining WP:WEIGHT just about impossible). I am not sure this should be a Wikipedia article. Am going to get the Casy & Parfitt book from the library tomorrow to see what it has to say. May be nominating this for deletion... Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, Just to let you know I can provide all of the primary sources. The fact that it represents a compound that doesn't follow The Morphine rule and has (almost) unique ring-substitution. I feel that it DOES help elucidate 3DQSAR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvwynn (talk • contribs) 23:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * to what is this relevant? (in other words, why did you write this?) thanksJytdog (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Dvwynn (talk) struggles to use talk pages correctly. It is in response to your comment about the article being OR. Testem (talk) 14:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ok, i just changed the sectioning and indenting to make it clear that you were responding to me. but what you wrote is not a reply to the problems with WP:OR.  it is not a matter of getting sources, it is the nature of those sources and how they are used. Jytdog (talk) 14:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that the last paragraph is WP:OR. Sources cited in the article establish U-47700's afinity for mu-receptors, and it is well-established and not controversial at all that mu-agonists cause those effects (and even that they could be harmful or fatal, though this warning seems out-of-place). This is a conclusion that could be drawn by anyone with an understanding of the sources, so under WP:SYNNOT - SYNTH is not obvious II, this isn't original research. Taharka (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I give up
I've tried my best and if that isn't good enough, so be it. Better just to delete the page which I will do now. I shouldn't have wasted those months in any case. I just want to move on to a conclusion. Guess I should have started with 'the wheel' or something equally complex. Thanks for the few who have been kind. Maybe I want my sandbox back to practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvwynn (talk • contribs) 16:29, 13 November 2014‎ (UTC)
 * what the hell are you doing by deleting the page and edit warring to delete it again? (real question) I don't understand that behavior at all.  If the article is to be deleted it needs to go through a process; it is not "yours" to delete now that it is published. Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty clear that the user is frustrated about the deletion proposal and is probably aware that deleting it is inappropriate; but wishes to make a statement. A shame but perhaps somewhat understandable given the time put into creating it. Testem (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Will someone please throw this away so I can try to build something usable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvwynn (talk • contribs) 14:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC) Well, at least now I can start on something else - it isn't blocking my sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvwynn (talk • contribs) 09:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You can nominate the article for deletion, if there's a credible rationale for doing so. If the intent is to substantially rewrite and improve the article, you are, of course, welcome to do that, too. But as you know, we can't just delete a sourced article without following a process. 2602:302:D89:D609:31BC:992E:2F19:A52B (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back Delia, I am pleased to see you returned. If you want any help with formatting or anything then please leave a message on my talk page. Don't forget to sign your posts using ~. Testem (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Potency
In patent US 4098904 the potency of N-alkyl-N-[2-(di-loweralkylamino; alkyl, allylamino; and alkyl cycloalkylalkylamino)cyclohexyl]-trifluoromethyl-, dihaloand halo, hydroxy benzamides is described at 2-3x morphine, not 7.5x. Are there any other sources supporting either numbers? Aethyta (talk) 20:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Image WRONG
The compound is made so that it is 100% trans, the image doesn't reflect this & Have no idea how to draw the correct image(s). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.56.145 (talk) 07:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)